What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5059309 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5059309?

Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5059309?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5059309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11421841-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

What was Tenancy Tribunal case 5059309 about?

The tribunal order states: An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal

How much money was awarded in case 5059309?

Property Damage: $460.00 awarded to landlord

What type of tenancy dispute was case 5059309?

The primary dispute was Property damage.

Where can I read the official tribunal order for case 5059309?

The official Ministry of Justice published order is available at https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/TTV2/PDF/11421841-Tribunal_Order_Redacted.pdf.

7A McKenzie Terrace, Te Aro, Wellington 6011 Tenancy Tribunal Case 5059309 — Property damage

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5059309 — net $460.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet repair	$460.00	Carpet repair
Net award	$460.00
Bond	$1,920.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$460.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Doubletree Properties Limited $460.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Doubletree Properties Limited: $460.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,460.00
The landlord’s claim for compensation for wall damage is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 18 December 2024. The matter was briefly adjourned for the parties to provide additional evidence to support their respective positions.
In this case, the landlord seeks compensation for damage to the walls ($1035) and carpet ($460) following the end of the tenancy. The tenant refutes these claims and seeks refund of the bond.
Under section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), a tenant is required to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
Regarding responsibility for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and exceeds fair wear and tear. If this is established, the tenant must demonstrate that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally. Section 40(2)(a) RTA. Wall damage
The landlord relied on photographic evidence showing damage to the paintwork on the walls in the lounge room from removal of wall hangings that required patch repair and paint.
The tenant disputes liability for the damage, arguing that it resulted from improper wall preparation rather than her actions. She relies on a report from an architect, who inspected the property after the damage occurred. According to the architects’ report, the tenant was removing 3M-type picture hanging strips in accordance with the correct method, but the paint surface was coming away from the walls in almost every case. The architect observed that the walls appeared to have a poor paint finish, with thin or insufficient paint coats and inadequate surface sealing, leading to the top layer of the gib board peeling off in some areas. The report concluded that the primary cause of the damage was improper wall preparation rather than any misuse of the adhesive strips by the tenant.
The landlord maintains that the property’s interior was newly plastered and painted before the tenancy commenced, with the work carried out by a qualified and reputable company. The landlord argues that the damage to the walls resulted from the tenant’s actions rather than any defect in the wall preparation. They do not accept the architect’s opinion as sufficient to establish that the paint application or surface preparation was substandard to the extent that the damage was unavoidable.
In the absence of a report or evidence from a qualified person confirming that the walls were properly prepared and painted before the tenancy commenced, the landlord has not substantiated their claim that the damage resulted from the tenant’s actions rather than an inherent defect in the wall preparation. The architect’s report provided by the tenant raises a credible argument that the damage was due to inadequate paint adhesion and improper surface preparation, making the walls susceptible to damage from normal use.
The burden falls on the landlord to prove that the damage was caused by the tenant’s carelessness or intentional conduct, rather than a pre-existing issue with the property. In this case, I find the landlord’s evidence falls short. Accordingly, the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Carpet stains
The RTA exempts tenants from liability for fair wear and tear. However, fair wear and tear typically refers to gradual deterioration from normal use, such as minor discoloration or flattening of carpet over time.
The landlord confirmed that the carpet was brand new when the tenancy commenced. The photographs provided by the landlord of the carpet at the end of the tenancy show distinct and apparent stains that are inconsistent with ordinary use. These stains indicate damage that is avoidable with reasonable care. The tenant has not provided evidence to establish that these stains are a result of fair wear and tear rather than negligence or carelessness. Based on the photographic evidence and the extent of the damage, the claim for carpet repair costs is upheld.
The tenant’s application for the refund of the bond will be offset against this awarded cost, with the remaining bond to be refunded to the tenant. Filing fee and suppression order
Both parties have filed applications and have had partial success in their respective claims. Given that each party has succeeded to some extent, it is neither fair nor reasonable for one party to be required to reimburse the other for costs. Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal may only award costs in exceptional circumstances, which do not arise in this case. Accordingly, the appropriate outcome is for both parties to bear their own costs.
With respect to name suppression, the landlord has not sought a suppression order. The tenant, however, has applied for suppression of her name. Under section 95 of the RTA, the Tribunal has discretion to grant suppression if a party has been wholly or substantially successful in their claim or defence. Given that the tenant successfully defended the more significant portion of the landlord’s claim in terms of monetary value, it is reasonable to grant name suppression in this instance.

Claims and awards in Tenancy Tribunal application 5059309 — net $460.00 NZD. Amounts reconciled from the published order (claims sum and net total). Verify on MoJ.
Claim	Landlord	Reason
Carpet repair	$460.00	Carpet repair
Net award	$460.00
Bond	$1,920.00
Total payable by Tenant to Landlord	$460.00

Order

An application for suppression has been made in this case, and the Tribunal orders suppression of the Tenant’s name and identifying details.
[The tenant/s] to pay Doubletree Properties Limited $460.00 from the bond, calculated as shown in table below.
The Bond Centre is to pay the bond of $1,920.00 ([Bond number suppressed]) immediately apportioned as follows: Doubletree Properties Limited: $460.00 [The tenant/s]: $1,460.00
The landlord’s claim for compensation for wall damage is dismissed.

Reasons

Both parties attended the hearing which was held by teleconference on 18 December 2024. The matter was briefly adjourned for the parties to provide additional evidence to support their respective positions.
In this case, the landlord seeks compensation for damage to the walls ($1035) and carpet ($460) following the end of the tenancy. The tenant refutes these claims and seeks refund of the bond.
Under section 40(1)(e)(iii) of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA), a tenant is required to leave the property reasonably clean and tidy at the end of the tenancy.
Regarding responsibility for damage to the premises, the landlord must prove that damage occurred during the tenancy and exceeds fair wear and tear. If this is established, the tenant must demonstrate that the damage was not caused carelessly or intentionally. Section 40(2)(a) RTA. Wall damage
The landlord relied on photographic evidence showing damage to the paintwork on the walls in the lounge room from removal of wall hangings that required patch repair and paint.
The tenant disputes liability for the damage, arguing that it resulted from improper wall preparation rather than her actions. She relies on a report from an architect, who inspected the property after the damage occurred. According to the architects’ report, the tenant was removing 3M-type picture hanging strips in accordance with the correct method, but the paint surface was coming away from the walls in almost every case. The architect observed that the walls appeared to have a poor paint finish, with thin or insufficient paint coats and inadequate surface sealing, leading to the top layer of the gib board peeling off in some areas. The report concluded that the primary cause of the damage was improper wall preparation rather than any misuse of the adhesive strips by the tenant.
The landlord maintains that the property’s interior was newly plastered and painted before the tenancy commenced, with the work carried out by a qualified and reputable company. The landlord argues that the damage to the walls resulted from the tenant’s actions rather than any defect in the wall preparation. They do not accept the architect’s opinion as sufficient to establish that the paint application or surface preparation was substandard to the extent that the damage was unavoidable.
In the absence of a report or evidence from a qualified person confirming that the walls were properly prepared and painted before the tenancy commenced, the landlord has not substantiated their claim that the damage resulted from the tenant’s actions rather than an inherent defect in the wall preparation. The architect’s report provided by the tenant raises a credible argument that the damage was due to inadequate paint adhesion and improper surface preparation, making the walls susceptible to damage from normal use.
The burden falls on the landlord to prove that the damage was caused by the tenant’s carelessness or intentional conduct, rather than a pre-existing issue with the property. In this case, I find the landlord’s evidence falls short. Accordingly, the landlord’s claim is dismissed. Carpet stains
The RTA exempts tenants from liability for fair wear and tear. However, fair wear and tear typically refers to gradual deterioration from normal use, such as minor discoloration or flattening of carpet over time.
The landlord confirmed that the carpet was brand new when the tenancy commenced. The photographs provided by the landlord of the carpet at the end of the tenancy show distinct and apparent stains that are inconsistent with ordinary use. These stains indicate damage that is avoidable with reasonable care. The tenant has not provided evidence to establish that these stains are a result of fair wear and tear rather than negligence or carelessness. Based on the photographic evidence and the extent of the damage, the claim for carpet repair costs is upheld.
The tenant’s application for the refund of the bond will be offset against this awarded cost, with the remaining bond to be refunded to the tenant. Filing fee and suppression order
Both parties have filed applications and have had partial success in their respective claims. Given that each party has succeeded to some extent, it is neither fair nor reasonable for one party to be required to reimburse the other for costs. Section 102 of the Residential Tenancies Act 1986 (RTA) provides that the Tribunal may only award costs in exceptional circumstances, which do not arise in this case. Accordingly, the appropriate outcome is for both parties to bear their own costs.
With respect to name suppression, the landlord has not sought a suppression order. The tenant, however, has applied for suppression of her name. Under section 95 of the RTA, the Tribunal has discretion to grant suppression if a party has been wholly or substantially successful in their claim or defence. Given that the tenant successfully defended the more significant portion of the landlord’s claim in terms of monetary value, it is reasonable to grant name suppression in this instance.

Tenancy Tribunal case 5059309 — Property damage at 7A McKenzie Terrace, Te Aro, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Tenancy Tribunal case 5059309 — Property damage at 7A McKenzie Terrace, Te Aro, Wellington 6011

At a glance

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions

Award balance

Claims & awards

Order

Reasons

Topics & place

Residential Tenancies Act sections

Key findings

Frequently asked questions